it's sort of a tragic story. it's a story of his great dreams that are destroyed by a war. >> you are 76 new. not going have time to finish the last book? >> well, sure. but, you know, it is not productive to think like that. >> chris: how long do you think it will take you to finish? >> i could say three or four years but why would you believe me? >> chris: after all, caro's latest book took nine years. there is at least one part of the final chapter of the johnson story that is already written. is it true that you already know the last sentence of the book? >> i always have to have a last sentence write towards. i have to know what the conclusion is. >> chris: can you tell us -- >> no! >> chris: is it a doozy of a last sentence? >> well, i hope so. >> chris: while caro feels the time pressure to finish up the

johnson story he has plans to write another book on a different subject after that. as a big fan of his work i can't wait to read it. that is it for today. today. have a great week and we will see you next "fox news sunday." >> "fox news sunday" is a presentation of fox news. >> this week on the journal editorial report. president obama's green agenda. he he has promised to make climate change a priority in his second term. why that may end up costing you big. plus, pro-golfer phil mickelson says high taxes may drive him out of california. we've got some suggestions on what states he should consider if he moves. and hillary clinton's swan song. look at her performance this week on capitol hill and her legacy as she prepares to leave washington, at least for now.

>> we will respond to the threat of climate change. knowing that the failure to do would betray our children and future generations. [cheers and applause] >> welcome to the journal. editorial report. i'm paul gigo. that was president obamahi prom messing promising to make global warming. first may come over the keystone excel oil pipeline which has been under review since 2008. governor proposed a revised route for the pipeline through nebraska this week. the final hurdle to the project at the state level. and 53 senators, including nine democrats sent a letter to the white house on wednesday s urging president obama to expedite its approval. joining the panel this week "wall street journal" assistantan editorial page editor james freeman, senior economics writer steve moore, and washington columnist kim

strousel. kim, where did it that come from? i don't remember climate change being something a president talked about a lot in the campaign if at all. >> surprise. >> he didn't wait for the state of the union, it's in the inauguralof address. what's going on here politically? >> look, i think some of us did think this was coming. ler, this>> was a high priority of his backk in 2008 when he campaigned. but they got beat up on it. they lost that fight in 2009. so they decided to put te'o side and not talk about it in the election. here we are back with his promise. and what was more interesting, too, is not only did he make that promise, but you had someone like barbara boxer who is the senator from california, a big climate person, she gave some details, too, about how they intend to pursue. this namely, they are going to go through the e.p.a. to do a big carbon regulation program. they are also thinking of putting in place a carbon tax. >> well, we will talk a little

bit about that. steve, so is this a regulatory agenda because i don't think cap and trade, the old program can pass even a democratic senate. it couldn't the first time when they controlled everything. >> yeah, there isra a reason that president obama almost never mentions the words climate change and cap and trade during the campaign, paul, that's because they are political losers. they are big tax increases on workers, on union workers, on manufacturing workers. so the democrats have avoided that issue now that they have won this election. they have sort of sprung it out on people. i still don't believe the votes are there in the united states senate and the house to pass anything like either the carbon tax or by the way the democrats are also talking about maybe an energy tax, like a gasoline tax. there is no political support there. that's why i think kim is right. if they are going to do this it's going to have to be through the regulatory angle trying to outlaw carbon in that way. >> james, why mention it so prominently or was this sort and switch for the

environmentalists. you mention it re tore rickly and say i'm really behind you. in policy terms, you don't give them anything. >> there may be some bait and switch. i think this is the key. if he doesn't neeyd to get anythingt. through the congress, as the potomac watch column in friday's journal. >> kim strousal, there is a lot of regulatory authority they think they have. court decision a few years ago empowers them to regulate carbon. they think they are off to the races here. so this suggests to me that maybe the play is, with all of the business community expecting an approval of the keystone pipeline, the president might approve the pipeline but then really ratchet down on the use of the oilat going through that pipeline. i think he might be able to say to environmentalists. >> how does he do that you? are not going to build this thing. i don't think there is a lot of oil that's going to go through it? >> certainly they people that want that oil are expecting a big market. if heta is at the end of that pipeline, once it goes out

into the economy, if the president is severely restricting how it's used, how it's used in transportation and manufacturing as senator boxer has said i think he could say tone environmentalists the end user is going to get hit hard here. we are going to reduce energy construction and construction jobs with the pipeline. >> can i make a related point here about the pipeline and carbon change. it's interesting, if you really care about global warming and you want to reduce carbon emissions, there is no question the most important thing america couldn do would beng to transition towards natural gas which we have ao huge abundance of. it is cheap. -- it is, abundant in the united states, and it does not emit i very many carbons into the atmosphere. and, yet, the left is against that, too. we need pipelines to get the natural gas to the markets. >> that's because natural gas would take the place of coal which is a much bigger carbon especially in terms of

utilities and electricity. >> is that the play that james freeman was talking about the trade of maybe get keystone going. allow fracking to go ahead but impose a carbon tax here which would be potentially a huge revenue raiser. if you start small on it, you still raise a lot of money but overtime you can ratchet that thing o up. >> you have to assume that that's the win-win play for president. look, what he has got to balance here is making his environmental left happy, which he did by putting out there the comment that they are going to address the climate threat. he is also sitting on top of this energy renaissance. in the country this is this huge new boom in gas and oil. we saw in the election he wanted to take some credit for that one way you could potentially do some of these things green light some of these natural gas projects and oil projects and on the other to get an energy tax out of it or something that makes it look as though you are ratcheting down on its use and get the bonus of a huge new revenue stream for the country if you

are a democrat. >> are republicans going to go along with this? would they buy an energy tax if the president really pushes it? >> a oh, hell know. [ laughter ] i don't think it gets any republican votes. and, look, you know, the president talks recommendation he is going to talk in the state of the union about we need more investment and infrastructure in this country. here we have an infrastructure project, it doesn't cost the government a dime. all private sector money. yet they are opposing it. it makes no sense. >> we hope he approves it phil mickelson under fire after suggesting he may leave california for more tax friendly local. a look at 8 states he might want to consider when we come back. your boa! [ garth ] thor's small business earns double miles on every purchase, every day! ahh, the new fabrics. put it on my spark card. ow. [ garth ] why settle for less? the spiked heels are working. wait!

[ garth ] great businesses deserve great rewards. [ male announcer ] the spark business card from capital one. choose unlimited rewards with double miles or 2% cash back on every purchase, every day! what's in your wallet? [ cheers and applause ]

a body at rest tends to stay at rest... while a body in motion tends to stay in motion. staying active can actually ease arthritis symptoms. but if you have arthritis, staying active can be difficult. prescription celebrex can help relieve arthritis pain so your body can stay in motion. because just one 200mg celebrex a day can provide 24 hour relief for many with arthritis pain and inflammation. plus, in clinical studies, celebrex is proven to improve daily physical function so moving is easier. celebrex can be taken with or without food. and it's not a narcotic. you and your doctor should balance the benefits with the risks. all prescription nsaids, like celebrex, ibuprofen, naproxen and meloxicam have the same cardiovascular warning. they all may increase the chance of heart attack or stroke, which can lead to death. this chance increases if you have heart disease or risk factors such as high blood pressure or when nsaids are taken for long periods. nsaids, including celebrex, increase the chance of serious skin or allergic reactions or stomach and intestine problems, such as bleeding and ulcers,

which can occur without warning and may cause death. patients also taking aspirin and the elderly are at increased risk for stomach bleeding and ulcers. do not take celebrex if you've had an asthma attack, hives, or other allergies to aspirin, nsaids or sulfonamides. get help right away if you have swelling of the face or throat, or trouble breathing. tell your doctor your medical history. and find an arthritis treatment for you. visit celebrex.com and ask your doctor about celebrex. for a body in motion. pro-golfer phil mickelson caused quite a stir last weekend for suggesting he may leave his home state of california in search oft friendlier tax climbs.

voters there, you may recall, passed proposition 30 in november making california the state with the highest top marginal tax rate in the country add that to what he will pay to uncle sam. it is not hard to see why he may not be shopping for a new place to live phil mickelson did the big mayo culpa and said i shouldn't have got involved inn tax talk. it probably hurt his brand somehow where should he go. >> he has exciting options. he may have even more option os as more states crr getting of golf weather the entire year expending where you live in florida. a rod has put his house on the markets. if phil is shopping.

>> alex rodriguez? >> yes. the new york yankees. >> some of us in agree bay there is another a rod who is more important. knicks nevada. this is bigger than phil mickelson is the problem having.ia is they is now kicked the rate up to 13.3% a lot of people are looking elsewhere. >> there is a lot of tax action going on in the states. tax reform action that's pretty interesting. a lot of reform governors out there trying to even eliminate the income tax. louisiana, kansas, nebraska. tell us what's going on and why. >> it's a great story. a great golf score but ain't so great as a tax rate. that's what phil mickelson is facing. so, the big story here is that you have a lot of these states that has been looking at what's happening in places like texas and places like tennessee. i'm in nashville, tennessee

today. town, u.s.a. this is states that it have no income tax. the evidence is irrefutable that businesses and capital and families are moving out of those high tax states where you live in new york and moving to these no tax states. you have got a number of places like northu' carolina, like arkansas, like kansas and oklahoma and south and southwest that say we don't want to be like california. we want to be like -- they are looking at eliminating their income taxes. >> revenue losses that will be complaint new give that up you are going to lose revenue. how do you make it up? >> that's a great question a lot of these states are saying thee are going to expand and maybe increase our sales tax. that's politically hazardous it hasn't looked very well. some states are looking a why not use this bonanza of money from the energy revolution that we talked about a little bit about earlier. use some of that money in terms of the severance taxes

that you can raise and royalties. that's how wyoming and alaska got rid of their income tax. >> you said the swap from income to tax sales tax politically difficult. >> economically it makes a lot of sense. because you are taxing consumption instead of taxing investment andse work and effort. >> yeah, thank you for clarifying that it's an important point. what i was. saying is sometimes it's a hard sell to the people saying when you go to the 7/11 or go to the grocery store, you might have to pay a little higher tax. the problem is people say well, maybe i will take the double i know, the income tax over the double i don't know these higher sales taxes. >> meanwhile, kim, there is a movement in the opposite direction in states that are controlled by democrats devol patrick proposing a big tax increase. something similar going on in minnesota that follows california, illinois, new york,so maryland, virginia mark warner and connecticut and so-called blue states which

have all raised taxes substantially in the last couple of years. >> the remarkable thing about it, paul, is that evidence is there aboutco what a disas youuss policy this is have the example of phil mickelson saying that he would like to look at a new place to live. we actually have the numbers showing the numbers saying this is exactly what happens when you do raise. maryland raised its taxes on millionaires as they called it and, you know, the next tax year those of those higher income job creators in the state havehe fled for other domains. probably some of these states that we're talking about that are looking, in fact, to decrease their income taxes. it's the wrong direction. but these states feel as though they are under enormous budget tear pressures. the way they will continue to keep spending is just to tax more. >> is this something that would give somebody like louisiana governor bobby jindal, who is sometimes mentioned as a presidential candidate, some real carry if he did decide to run? >> absolutely. it's exciting to see these reform governors out there

because the reformers of a couple years ago, chris cities industry in beloved really backed off the tax reform issue. the problem is new jersey still has rate. it's not going to help them. i think to the extent that bobby jidged combings in. he is proposing reforms on the tax side. really could become a name in republican primaries. peoplerm like christie receipt of a it. >> almost like the red states, these reaganomics and blue states are practicing obamaomicc taxes and education going to create jobs. great thing about america we will see. we will have the experiment of which these states will prosper. i'm going to put my money on the south. >> in massachusetts also exploding healthcare costs. >> that's right. >> paul: all right, when we comeca back, hillary clinton's swan song as she prepares to leave washington a look at her

final performance and her future in politics. red lobster's 30 shrimp. wow, that's a lot of shrimp. [ male announcer ] it's red lobster's 30 shrimp! for $11.99 pair any two shrimp selections on one plate! like mango jalapeño shrimp and parmesan crunch shrimp. just $11.99. offer ends soon! i'm ryon stewart, and i sea food diffently. but, dad, you've got... [ voice of dennis ] allstate. with accident forgiveness, they guarantee your rates won't go up just because of an accident. smart kid. [ voice of dennis ] indeed. are you in good hands?

>> the fact is we had four dead americans. was it because of a protest or because of guys out for a walk one night whot decided they would go kill some americans. what difference, at this point, does it make? caliber an oscar performance from outgoing secretary of state hillary clinton this week as she testified on capitol hill about the september 11th attack on n. benghazi that killed u.s. ambassador chris stevens and three other americans. "wall street journal" editorial board a member matt comenski he joins us now. what difference does it make who killed those americans? >> well, clearly the question was why were the american

people mislead in the first place about who was responsible for the death of the u.s. ambassador and three others there. the firstmi killing of a u.s. ambassador in several decades? and i think the fact that they were mislead and did mislead. became a story out there that was not the real story. >> the youtube video. does it matter in addition to misleading, does it matter actually that this was now, we know, almost certainly an organized terrorist attack? >> of course it does. i mean, that speaks to the fact that we have failed in libya we didn't help the government there really secure that country. we saw the proliferation of islamist militias who are armed by countries in the gulf who came in. >> because we didn't want to it play a role there we subcontracted out. >> that's right. >> cutter. >> right. and cutter. we don't want to be involved after the war we stepped out. same story in mali, same story obviously in afghanistan now where we are pulling out and in iraq we have totally pulled

out a question of accountability. she did gooder job to give her credit she spent five hours without doing any major damage to her own political damage. the question should still be answered. >> what are those questions or why we had that light footprint and why we didn't anticipate thatha attack and why the united states wanted to wash its hands of libya? >> exactly those questions, what did president obama do that day? what options were being considered to it try to help the the come bound in benghazi and the cia annex next door in the city? you know, why weren't there constituency plans in place to help americans in case something liken this happened in a virtual war zone? i have the impression, that most of the republicans with the exception ofce ron jobs and marco rubio were not prepared for this hearing. they didn't dig hard and ask good questions. john mccain gave a speech. he has got authority and rand

paul gave a speech. but nobody really dug in to answer those questions. that's one one of the reasons she emerged, i think, with up scathe. the democrats have to pay -- hillary clinton looking towards 2016 whether she will probably run. >> no question about that. i think shehe will. that doesn't bode well at all for the chuck hale friends. going to give him a tough time nominee for 70s secretary. >> no, and what they really failed to do here, paul, was not just have a response or presser on these big things. move her off the talking points and the that you just asked. t bigger question putting and placing benghazi scope of a broader failure of foreign policy. that's going to have to be what they are going to do if they are going to talk about chuck hagel is highlight the the obama's failures in this area and talk about chuck hagel is going to be yes man for that strategy.

if they are not able to do that in a hearing like this which they have been pressing for four months it does not bode well. >> paul: what about her overall tenure at state? is there anything you can point to fall of qaddafi, that's now taken a negative term. there was an arm's control deal withe russia. you were not enamored of, as i recall. overall, what's her legacy? i mean, she is one of the most traveled secretaries of state. she did the public diplomacy part of her job to her credit well. she was sort of a very famous figure who went to many countries, in terms of her influence on obama policy or much less any sort of achievement it is impossible, at least to me to point to anything. what was even more remarkable about those hearings is that she sounded very hawkish on america musted lead in north africa.

why must fight the spreading -- >> can'tus leave a vacuum fille. that's not the policy this administration is following. >> she is still in it supposed to be the leading foreign policy figure in this administration. that's a preview's of 2016. all right. we have to take one more break. when we come back, our hits and misses of the week. mmm. it's delicious! another angry-satisfied customer. you don't need toppings! and that is why we're fixing this. hey earth! stop topping triscuit! [ male announcer ] 100% whole grain woven for an untoppable taste.

>> time now for hits and misses of the week. >> paul, hit to british prime minister david cammeron who on wednesday gave a very note worthy speech on the european union. he said that europe must reform, it must bring back its internal market and a free market to the corps where it does and he will put membership in the european union up to referendum after the next election. europe needs democratic legitimacy and needs to be confirmed by voters. smart risky move by cammeron. >>